Are American Tax Dollars Funding a Lie
The medium is the message. ~Marshall McLuhan
We might as well pay bureaucrats bonuses to do nothing. How can continued support of Mann’s hockey stick, long after it was debunked, be seen as anything other than evidence of ulterior motives? With all that has gone on up to now, can anyone see climatology as anything more than Gypsy science, dressed up in the robes of Western academia? There are plenty of strong opinions but that is because only skeptics will engage on the facts –e.g.,
“Data necessary to create a viable determination of climate mechanisms and thereby climate change, is completely inadequate. This applies especially to the structure of climate models. There is no data for at least 80 percent of the grids covering the globe, so they guess; it’s called parameterization… ~Tim Ball
Academia’s likening of the climate change phenomenon to the analogy of a greenhouse is further evidence of ulterior motives. It is a gross abuse of science to facilitate demands for the global regulation of all human activities by equating the building of a hothouse to an activity that is warming the globe with disastrous consequences for everyone else on the planet.
“The unfortunate reality is that efforts to regulate one risk can create other, often more dangerous risks… Insofar as regulations divert resources away from potentially life-saving or safety-enhancing activities, they make people worse off. At the extreme, regulations that impose substantial costs can even increase overall mortality. Higher economic growth and aggregate wealth strongly correlate with reduced mortality and morbidity. This should be no surprise as the accumulation of wealth is necessary to fund medical research, support markets for advanced life-saving technologies, build infrastructure necessary for better food distribution, and so on. In a phrase, poorer is sicker, and wealthier is healthier. There is no free health. Much the same can be said for environmental protection. ~Jonathan Adler (More Sorry Than Safe: Assessing the Precautionary Principle…)
Yes, we can stop humanity from building greenhouses. The first thing Hamas did when taking over the Gaza strip in 2005 was destroy greenhouses in the area where Jews had lived. Because we can tear down greenhouses, does that mean that by analogy we can stop the climate from changing? Would that it were possible to protect ourselves from the threat of killer weather conditions like abrupt low temperature winds and cold rains by simply increasing atmospheric levels of a greenhouse gas like CO2. So, it may not come as a surprise to learn that the Greenhouse analogy has been busted: a debunked experiment that purported to show the effect of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption properties on global climate only proved Al Gore didn’t know his gas from a hole in a bottle! (Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics)
The Left’s view of the Precautionary Principle is simple. To preserve Michael Mann’s right to tenure, we must be willing to destroy free enterprise capitalism and foundational principles such as respect for individual liberty and the need for personal responsibility, even if it means undermining respect for the country’s most basic of all Judeo-Christian values: sincerity and honesty.
“At the extreme,” says Adler, “regulations that impose substantial costs can even increase overall mortality.” How many lives have been destroyed by Western academia’s facilitation of the politics of fear? Pseudoscience has been used to fuel irrational alarmism in areas from global warming and tropospheric ozone to biotechnology and population growth. More people, says the bumper sticker, were killed at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island.
California, for example, is a state run entirely by liberals that is choking on job-killing regulations, productivity-sapping lawyer taxes and anti-business Leftist dogma. We have Ayn Rand to thank for pushing through the dogma to warn us about what happens when we let society continue to ignore answering the important questions –e.g., what is riskier, denying freedom to humanity or letting government decide our future?
Looking at the matter pragmatically, do I expose society to an intolerable risk when I raise bees to harvest their honey? Shall our endless capacity for alarm about everything from bad weather to killer bees be used to entitle society to a share in the profits that flow from my investment of my time and my energy in my bee-raising activities? Is society justified in voting themselves a share in the fruits of my labor as rent because it feels it owns the nectar of flowers that my bees will harvest? And, is society entitled to enforce its self-interested vote to my property because their laws are a legitimate precaution given their fear of my freedom?
The presence of uncertainty about a technology, without more, cannot establish a presumption that more regulation is required. ~Jonathan Adler